buffysboobs:

i know where you’re coming from. i used to say that willow’s categorization as a lesbian was bi erasure, but i’ve changed my mind on that. while i think the writers’ motives for labeling willow a lesbian are rooted in biphobia, that doesn’t change the fact that she is canonically a lesbian (i’ll tell you how it’s canon: that’s how she identifies. regardless of her relationship with oz, her attraction to dracula, etc, her word is gospel. if she says she’s a lesbian, she is.)

i feel like this conversation is complicated because you have to acknowledge two different “realities:” the reality of the writers and the “reality” in which willow exists. i think it’s good to acknowledge the writers’ motives in their labeling of willow, and i’m gonna try to put myself in their shoes. i can kind of see the seams of their storytelling a little bit; the little inconsistencies in how they portray willow reveal a lot of biphobia and lesbophobia imo. i can’t remember where i heard this but there was a writer who alluded to the fact that, when they first wrote about tara and willow getting together, they didn’t intend to label her as gay or permanently nix boys from her dating scene. the writer then went on to say that after the huge positive fan reaction the writers thought something along the lines of “we can’t go back now.” and by “going back” they seemed to mean willow dating boys (biphobic much? as if bisexual identity is less valid when people of different genders are together). this would suggest that, as originally conceived, willow was supposed to be bi. but given whedon’s beef with bi people (he doesn’t seem to think they exist) i’m willing to bet the dreaded b-word would never have been uttered. when i look at the vagueness of willow’s coming out to buffy in “new moon rising” (no labels are used) and willow’s goodbye to oz where she suggests they’ll find each other again when they’re older, i don’t think the writers meant to portray her as a lesbian originally.

although the writers settled on the lesbian identifier for willow after she got together with tara, they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. of course they would never consider labeling her bi because, bah! bisexuality isn’t a thing!!!! bisexuals r not gay enuf 2 b on our show, we wanna make a P OL I T I C AL statement ok!!!!!! at the same time though, they choose to slip in these little references to willow’s attraction to men even though she’s obvs a lesbian. (her attraction to dracula in “dracula,” her attraction to giles in “where the wild things are” and her attraction to what’s-his-face in “him” all come to mind). it’s like they’re winking at the audience, going “she’s not reaaaaallllyyyyy gay.” see how they manage to be both biphobic and lesbophobic at the same time, by treating bisexuality as ~not gay enough~ (given what the writer said in the interview i saw) and also invalidating her gay identity with all these random attractions to dudes, played for laughs?

ok, so that’s one level. let’s now talk about willow’s identity from an in-universe perspective. this is where it’s gonna become clear why i’m so hard-headed about willow definitely being a lesbian, no ifs, ands, or buts.

we can talk all day about the writers’ biphobia and lesbophobia, their motives for choosing to label willow a lesbian, and their need to invalidate her identity regardless of label. it’s important to acknowledge all those things and recognize that these writers are flawed and therefore their conception of anything non-het and their treatment of anything non-het will be flawed.

but if we take away all this conversation about the writers, and focus on willow herself, it becomes incredibly important to support her lesbian identity and to not question it. i’ve seen plenty of people point to willow’s attractions to men as “proof” that she’s “really bi” and i’ve even been one of the people to do that in the past, but in reality that’s extremely hurtful to lesbians. taking everything willow says about her identity to heart, she is representative of a huge part of the lesbian community in that 1) she had a long term relationship with a man 2) she seems to struggle with compulsory heterosexuality 3) she conceptualizes her identity as changeable.

1) after willow identifies as gay we don’t hear much from her on whether or not she thinks her relationship with oz was “valid,” but regardless of what she might say, her past relationships with men don’t make her any less of a lesbian. her past relationship with oz doesn’t make her “really bi” because she identifies as gay, and that’s all we should need to let the subject drop. we need to trust that willow knows herself better than we do.

2) from an in-universe perspective, i definitely attribute willow’s occasional attractions to men to compulsory heterosexuality. she grew up being taught to see men in a certain way, and to perform heterosexuality. all that conditioning doesn’t necessarily disappear when you come out.

3) willow makes with the quippy “gay now!” line a few times after coming out. this has bothered a lot of people, understandably, because it’s a common misconception among straights that people turn gay or become gay. but willow’s assertion that she’s “gay now” tells us a little bit about her perspective. she may phrase it that way because she believes she was once bi or once straight, but is no longer. she may feel because of her past relationship with oz that she has no right to claim she was gay back then. either way i think the phrasing is rooted in uncertainty about her past identity, and while i know that’s frustrating, it doesn’t make her any less gay. it doesn’t make her less of a lesbian to suggest that in the past she may not have been one. people change, and evolution shouldn’t invalidate identity.

all of the above three points are things that a lot of real-life lesbians identify with and struggle with. i’m a lesbian and i can say that all three of the things i just listed apply not only to willow, but to me as well. i want to emphasize that willow is, of course, a very important character to the lesbian community and a lot of lesbians identify with her. it’s precisely because of willow’s identity and because of her popularity with lesbians that it is extremely hurtful to suggest she is bi, especially if you use any of the above three points to support your argument.

using willow’s vulnerabilities and inconsistencies to invalidate her identity from an in-universe perspective is hurtful because it suggests to all lesbians who deal with the same issues that they are equally invalid, pretenders, or “really bi.” it may not be obvious to you, but people often use real-life lesbians’ inconsistencies to invalidate their identity by saying “well you once dated a guy!” or “so you used to be bi… and now you’re… not? BUT YOU DATED A GUY” or “omg ahhaha you just said that guy was attractive….. u sure ur gay?”

also, just on a broader level, it’s very common in our culture to invalidate lesbian identity and experience. so suggesting that a lesbian icon (c’mon, that’s not a stretch is it?) is not in fact a lesbian takes away from the little representation we lesbians have. it’s also just another way of invalidating lesbians’ feelings and identities in a culture where lesbians are never believed to ~really~ be lesbians in the first place.

i hope this helps, because i turned this into meta and i didn’t mean to!